Why You Should Go Away for College

In the past decade, an undergraduate degree or some other form of advanced training has become more vital than ever, to successfully enter meaningful employment. Today, an undergraduate degree has the same employment obtainment power as the high school diploma did for former generations. However, college is more than just getting a degree. More than ever college is about obtaining real world experience, creating life-long connections, and developing into a well-rounded individual. There are so many questions to think about when going to college. What do I want my major to be? What do I want to do when I graduate? Etc. However, the most important question might be, where do I want to go to school? There are two important considerations unrelated to major: Stay at or close to home? Move far away from home?

Some of the most vital reasons to go away to college are recounted here, as lived by me, a real live college senior.

1. It gives you greater independence.

It allows you to thrive in a way you cannot if mom and dad are a 5 minute to 1 hour drive away, or in the next room. If you're still living at home you never get the chance to meet challenges without the crutch of a parent coming through the door momentarily.You have always relied on your parents.The closer they are, the fewer the opportunities to break that pattern.

When you don't live at home there is no one to wake you up in the morning to make sure you go to your 8am class, you simply have to be self-motivated to succeed. Going away to college allows you to cut the tie and learn to do things for yourself, whether it be setting up a dentist appointment, or in more advanced years, paying your electric bill.

2. It's a chance to discover who you are

The average college student is still discovering who they are while they are in college. Going to a new place for college can open you up to experiences and people you would never meet in your hometown. This can help shape your life and become who you want to be. Not who your parents want you to be. Not whom your childhood friends and peers see you as. Something more, something still changing and still growing. Can you grow and change closer to your parents. Of course, you can. However, people often say college is a time for experimentation. Being away at university helps you figure out, in an unfamiliar environment, what you like, what you do not like, and what you want to do with your life.

If you stay at home you are more likely to keep doing what you have always done. This may not be a bad thing. However, moving somewhere new could help you discover a completely different side of yourself. Micro-cultures are a fact. Going away to school increases your opportunities to discover other ideas, and ways of living, rather than sticking with the familiar and comfortable.

3. It pushes you out of your comfort zone

Starting over in a new place can be scary, especially when you do not know anyone. It is a very valuable skill to have and one you will probably need after university.

The average individual needs to experience new people at some point in their life, rather than be surrounded by familiar faces. In order to learn how to handle people and grow culturally as a person, one must place themselves in a new environment with faces that are anything but familiar.

People who are successful in the real world know how to handle people in different situations.They need to adapt to being more outgoing and social even if they are an introvert.These skills can be obtained by going to college away from home.

High school graduates wanting to go to college should give serious consideration to moving away from home. Going away for college provides additional opportunities for a student to develop priceless real world skills, ahead of the peer who remains closer to the home. It will improve their odds of meeting their full potential, provided they understand self-discipline when it comes to class attendance and homework.

While getting a degree is the main focal point in going to college, one should not underestimate the many other benefits of attending a university. Especially one miles away from home.

Exposed, The Student Loan Trap

In today's fast paced world of high finance where profits are all that matter it is not surprising that institutions of higher learning have now joined the rank and file wall street consortium. The surge of for profit universities has more than doubled just within the past few years and with it student loan debt has reached the highest level in the history of the US. Never before have institutions of higher learning been so profit oriented. Just imagine tuition at Harvard University 100 years ago cost a whopping $150 and many state schools charged nothing at all. Now, when we look at the consumer price index from the past 100 years there has been a 2,263% rise since 1915 in the cost of everything we buy. College tuition on the other hand, the price index has risen by over 43,000% since 1915. That alone should be a real wake up call for all educators, the public and all elected officials. This increase is just tuition costs never mind room and board, books, and all the other incidentals associated with campus living.

One of the most concerning facts about the ever increasing amount of student loan debt are the many smaller more specialized for profit universities that have taken over the TV adds lately. It is pretty obvious when so many of these for profit schools emphatically state in their recruitment practices that they offer students a much better chance and practically guarantee employment upon successful completion of course requirements. With the US economy still in an economic quandary what employment opportunities there are too many times these students will not land a qualified job with the salary to match their ability to repay all the student loans that have been added just to complete their course requirements. It is as though these schools are deceiving students, their parents, and even grandparents by offering incentives attached to degrees in specialized fields using their own financial network knowing full well that there is still a very little chance these students will ever be able to repay all the costs incurred.

One of the most influential factors in college recruitment practices especially among career advisors, guidance counselors, school officials, and college recruiters today claim that by going to college it is an investment in your future. Today, it is more like speculation of a future that really isn't that secure. What they don't tell even though tuition may seem high today the student loans incurred by going to their school may never be fully be paid off. With so little actual good paying jobs in these specialized fields that future is marred by enormous debt from all the student loans that have piled up. It is just like the Housing Crisis when financial institutions coerced people to take on the seemingly unimaginable costs in mortgages in the hopes that they will in the future be able to pay the balance on their mortgage. But, in reality those future costs became insurmountable. The same thing is happening with student loan practices today.

Never before in American history has this nation been so immersed in debt. Whether it is Auto loans, home mortgages, credit cards and now student loans have all amassed trillions of dollars of debt that too many will never be able to repay. With this holiday season already upon us credit card debt is already sky high and is getting higher all the time. Just this past week on Cyber Monday 93% of sales were all debt transactions. Credit or debt financing has taken hold of our whole economy. When we add student loan debt combined with all the mortgage foreclosures that have befallen millions of Americans since 2008 the United States is being crushed by the massive weight of colossal debt. Yet, there are unscrupulous institutions, and individuals who continue to reap billions of dollars capitalizing on others indebtedness. Just this past year the Federal Government reaped over $42 billion in profit from all the student loans that they issued..

It has been known for quite some time now, thought grossly under reported that college students have been inundated with massive student loan debt. For years now that debt has only set the stage for an economic and financial disaster. All too often it is the for profit universities that have lured prospective students using false pretenses into thinking that by attending their school you will in fact be better prepared to actually get hired by businesses that would utilize your specific educational background. Today, what these for profit schools do is unconscionable. They purposely are luring students into large student loans knowing full well they have no intention of following through on what they advertise. It is a fact that the more a student gets in loans whether it is through a financial institution or from the school itself like DeVry, which uses it's own financial management company that underwrites their students loans, these institutions continue to make huge profits.

Call it what you will private for profit institutions of higher learning continue fleecing students and parents alike by the sheer volume of loans offered by the Universities in conjunction with the Federal Government. Today, the total amount of student loan debt in the United States is over $1.3 trillion. To think that a college education had always been a gateway to an occupation to ones chosen field and the promise that their occupation would provide the means for a standard of living much better had they not attended and got that degree. Sad to say those days are long gone.

There maybe a bright spot on the horizon where student loan debtors may very well be on the verge with a new ability to have these loans discharged. The biggest reason today is the fact that students all over the country are being duped. For years now students and their parents have been literally on the hook for massive student loan debt. Without some sort of ability to discharge these loans students and parents will never be able to pay them back. As it stands today thousands are immersed not only in massive debt but their entire lives continue to be adversely affected. Instead of contributing to a growing economy too many will in fact be a burden upon society. And, that will do absolutely nothing to generate economic growth, stability and prosperity for our communities and our country.

The biggest problem today with the enormous debt associated with student loans is that financial institutions that provide these loans are now bundling them together and then selling them just like the they did and continue to do with home mortgages. Like 2008 when the housing bubble broke the same thing is going to happen with student loan debt. What is so tragic is that these financial institutions as well as the Federal Government continue to reap billions of dollars in profits every year. The best way to address this growing crisis is with legislation that is being proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders. And if it comes to pass that free college tuition for anyone who qualifies to attend it just maybe the best way to advert a financial disaster. By Dr. Tim G Williams

Poverty and Media

Man is curious by nature and always remains busy in new and novel things. Poverty has many dimensions and quenches the thirst of man in this regard. He always comes by odd, weird and strange happenings due to poverty. Mother killed her babies, a father slaughtered his family, a brother ate to his fill while his little sisters and brother died due to famine. All these headlines are the offspring of obnoxious poverty. Hunger is the worst thing in this world. If one is hungry, he can sell his honor, his homeland and even his loved ones. It is a curse and an 'anaconda' that gnaws at the very roots of the humanity. It is not only shown on the media but also discussed in the meetings and seminars. The UN has included it in its millennium development goals. It is ever hot issue of the world. The most powerful nations of the world are not devoid of this anathema.

A lot of people die due to hunger and unavailability of eatables in the advanced countries. According to the facts and figures of the UN about 25000 deaths occur daily due to non availability of food. It means that one person is dying in every four seconds. The children are the worst prey to poverty all over the world.

Irony of the situation is that there is plenty of food present in the reservoirs of the world. In spite of the stock piles of the food,the same is not available to the hungry and the poor. The poor have no money to buy this food and are not able to live. Constant starvation makes them weak and they did not remain able to work. This unemployment breaks their neck and they fell down and down in the abyss of poverty and hunger.

This vicious circle ends in unfortunate deaths of these pitiable people. The world watches these hapless human beings dying only due to lack of few dollars. Not only the one man dies but also his family is famished and constrained to disappear from the face of the earth. World media and world organizations forget them after making their deaths headline on the face of their periodicals. Nobody comes out to disburse food or money. Only word jugglery is performed in the meetings and seminars for keeping oneself in the news and promoting one's image as a humanitarian.

Poverty is ridiculed instead of redeemed. The poor are punned and are shown with the naked feet and deprived souls on the media. It is done in the name of good faith but there is not even simple faith except shenanigans.

The UN is trapped by the profiteers and pseudo-non governmental organizations whose sole aim is to grab and pile up money by hook or by crook. Such persons and organizations try their best to remain in limelight. Their aim is to pretend humanism. They want people and governments of the world to praise their work. They influence the common folk by their false image. This is one of the reasons that poverty becomes the important news. Few organizations try sincerely and work out plans to save the starved people. Such programs need advertisement and publicity. This also makes poverty an important news item. To conclude it can be said that overt and covert aims of being publicized and remain in the news are the causes that include poverty in the major news items and discussions on all the forums.
Self Observation

LG Orsay Review For Students

Students all need mobile phones to get in touch with friends, classmates and family. They also need more access to information for their school requirements. Entertainment is very much in demand to most students as well.

The Basic Mobile Phone Needs of Students

Most students enjoy sending text messages. They send SMS to classmates, to friends and to almost everybody many times a day. While voice calls still has a demand, text messaging seem to have caught on with the students.

Then students love sending out and receiving multimedia messages too. In connection with this, they love taking photos so they can send them to their friends and even to family. And so they would need a good built-in camera to take pictures with.

For this, they are very fortunate that the LG Orsay is now available in the market. This mobile phone is well equipped with a 5MP camera. Students will certainly have a good camera when they have an LG Orsay. It has great optics and the rest of the camera features are just to die for. Students will really love the photos they will be able take with the Schneider-Kreuznach certified lens and the image stabilisation and the autofocus features. Photo editing is even possible in-camera.

Video clips can easily be taken with the LG Orsay camera. Students would have fun taking 30 frames per second videos. And watching them would surely be fun using the video player that is in this camera as well.
Of course, students need to go online many times during the week and even during the day. The internet capabilities would surely come in handy when on mobile and during emergencies. When one needs to search the internet right away, the LG Orsay will surely have its purpose.

It's also common knowledge that many students love listening to music. For this purpose, the LG Orsay is a good music player. With additional memory, this mobile phone can certainly store a lot of music. But the beauty of this built-in music player is it plays many of the music file formats. One does not need to convert a lot of their music files to be able to load them into their phone. They can use the songs as ring tones. It can also serve as an FM radio.

LG Orsay Review: This Is for Students!

The most that students need is a mobile phone that will serve them at the lowest cost possible. That is why this LG Orsay review recommends this mobile phone to students. Students do not even need to spend ?200 to have an LG Orsay. And the mobile phone deals available for this unit are so affordable. The packages are packed with services like unlimited text messaging and unlimited internet usage among others. If students need a mobile phone that rocks with so many features LG Orsay is the phone to get. And there are certainly many mobile phone deals to choose from. Students will not find a hard time looking for an affordable one. And the services are there to compliment the features that LG Orsay mobile phone is packed with. Again, the LG Orsay is the phone for the most demanding students.

About the Author: We compare prices for the LG Orsay in the UK. You can also read our LG Orsay review and other handset reviews.

How banks rip off college students and the government.

If you know anything at all about the federal student loan program, you will not have been surprised by the scandal of recent months. The only amazing thing is that it has taken so long to arrive. Here's how the program works: Banks and other private companies lend money to students. The federal government pays part or all of the interest—currently 7 percent or 8 percent. The government also guarantees the loans.

What is wrong with this picture? Well, the government itself borrows the odd nickel to finance the national debt. This borrowing, obviously, is also guaranteed by the government. For that reason, it carries an interest rate of only 3 percent or 4 percent. If the government can borrow money at 3 percent or 4 percent, why should it be paying 7 percent or 8 percent for the privilege of guaranteeing loans to someone else? Wouldn't it make more sense for the government to loan out the money itself?

That is the $4 billion question (the approximate annual cost of the interest subsidy). And the answer is: Of course that would make more sense. It is what any levelheaded businessperson would do. And what is stopping the government from behaving like a levelheaded businessperson? Not those head-in-the-clouds Democrats. It's Republicans, who adopted the student loan "industry" in its infancy, like a stray cat, and have nurtured it and protected it ever since. There actually is a parallel student loan program that does use government funds. It was started in the early days of the Clinton administration. It costs less to operate, and it has not been tainted by scandal. But when the Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994, they pushed through a law forbidding the Education Department to encourage the use of this program. As a result, direct federal loans account for only 25 percent of all student loans.

There is plenty of other encouragement going on. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has extracted fines of more than $1 million each from prestigious institutions like Columbia and Johns Hopkins—and, for that matter, nearly as prestigious institutions like Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. It seems that kickbacks were being paid to university financial aid officers who delivered customers. Some of them even got stock in some of the more specialized, and dubious, student loan companies. When the government is giving away free money—which is what the program amounts to (and I mean giving it away to the banks, not to the students)—it's worth a good deal to get cut in on such a good deal.

When the student loan abuse story broke, fingers were pointed at the Education Department, which is supposed to supervise the program. The Government Accountability Office minced no words. It called on the department to "develop a protocol to determine the appropriate level of response for cases of non-compliance and assess the effectiveness of these actions to inform and improve this protocol." Wow. While the Education Department quaked in its boots over that one, Congress more usefully passed a bill substantially reforming the student loan program and cutting the subsidy to banks and other loan providers by 80 percent. President Bush, to his credit, will sign these reforms into law. In fact, he actually proposed some of them in his budget from February of this year. But this puts him at odds with his party.

The student loan "industry," as it is comically referred to in the newspapers, is an interesting case study in politics and business. To start, it is hardly an industry. There are no factories. The only things it "makes" are loans. Furthermore, it exists only because of a government program. Yet in the four decades since the federal government started it, the student loan business has evolved into a pretty good imitation of an industry, with trade associations, lobbyists, and support from politicians, mostly Republican. This "industry" is so dependent on the good will of politicians, in fact, that the reform bill alone may be enough to queer the deal in which its biggest player, Sallie Mae, is supposed to be bought by a private-equity firm for $25 billion. Even before taking over, the private-equity firm booted Sallie Mae's CEO on the explicit grounds that he did not have good relations with Democrats. To run this so-called company, in other words, you don't need to know how to make widgets or even how to make loans. You just need to know how to make nice. But don't feel too bad for this CEO who suddenly found his Rolodex obsolete: He made $40 million last year and will get millions more if the deal does go through.

But why do Republicans love student loans? Oh, in part the usual reasons: lobbyists and campaign contributions. There is almost sure to be at least one of these firms in your district—the local bank, if no one else. But there is more. Student loans are the clearest example of the common Republican confusion between free-market capitalism and business. Capitalism is an economic system that is held, with some justification, to be the best guarantor of prosperity. Business can be capitalism in action, or it can be something entirely different. There is very little about the student loan program that has anything to do with free-market capitalism. Yet whenever the student loan system comes under criticism, lobbyists, "industry" leaders, and supportive politicians haul out the same old clichés as if they were defending Adam Smith's famous pin factory itself.

During the recent reform bill debate in the House, for example, a Republican from Texas, Jeb Hensarling, declared that the very notion of reducing the subsidy to private companies was "all part of a Democratic tax-and-spend program." Rep. Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, declared that "we should call this the new Democratic welfare bill," because it was "taking away personal responsibility from people and giving them out and out payments for loans that they take out." This may be referring to a part of the bill that would forgive loans after many years for people who devote their lives to public service. Or it may just be nuts.

A so-called "analysis" by an industry expert, which (according to the Washington Post) circulated on Capitol Hill during the debate, worried that the big boys would survive, but the subsidy reductions "may leave smaller lenders unprofitable." Concern for "small lenders" was a common theme, as if a loan from a ma-and-pa bank, if such an institution exists, would be warmer and cuddlier than a loan from Citibank. Another common theme was that the subsidy cut was part of a covert Democratic effort to drive people into the direct federal loan program—or, as one lender CEO described it, the "one-size-fits-all direct loan program." This would be no bad thing, but it doesn't seem to have been the case. I'm not sure what "one size fits all" means here, but if it refers to the interest rate that students and their families have to pay, it's true that there is only one rate in the government program, compared with many in the private one—all of them higher, but maybe there are people for whom the variety is worth it.
By Michael Kinsley via www.slate.com

True education reform

As the furor over American education increases, the demand for simple answers to complex issues escalates.

The easiest – and most visible – target for the ills of education is the classroom teacher. After all, teachers are entrusted with providing students with the tools to be successful in life and society; taxpayers expect a return on their investment.

Local, state and national standards lay out in excruciating detail just what is expected. Curriculum standards describe the content that students must learn, and professional development sessions disseminate the newest educational pedagogy designed to impart this information. To say that it is a daunting task is an understatement. The issue is not why so many teachers leave the profession, but rather, why so many stay.

Schools are a reflection of the society as a whole. If society truly values education, why is the average academic school year in the United States almost two weeks less than the international average for industrialized nations? When Americans complain about the preparation their students are receiving for college or work, perhaps some attention to should be directed to how long our students are in school and what takes up their time while they are there.

Then there is the need for "soft" preparation – things like work ethic, behavior, punctuality. Business leaders complain that new workers often don't understand the need to be on time, work hard, dress appropriately and act in a manner acceptable to the work place. But if the community – and parents – don't make sure students come to school on time, dressed properly and prepared to work, teachers must take up the slack. That takes time away from education in the curriculum standards. Perhaps an expectation that students arrive at school on time and get ready to work might be in order.

So, how should we improve high school to prepare students for college/career? The following suggestions might help.

• Lengthen the school year, but not the curriculum. Give schools more time to teach the existing curriculum, and there will be improvement. Even 10 or 15 more days would allow teachers time for review, for exploration of ideas, or for in-depth writing assignments.

• Get past the idea that school should be "fun!" What adults consider fun and what students consider fun are not the same. School should be challenging, interesting, exciting and illuminating, but not necessarily "fun." Sometimes it takes plain old hard work to master a concept. Sesame Street and other well-intentioned shows have done more damage than we realize in reducing education to sound bites. Education should not be all "drill and kill," but it is also not all fun and games. Homework is a necessary reinforcement, and the students won't learn the material as well when the parent decides that soccer practice, dance lessons or work is more important. The message that is being sent to the students is that hard work and practice are not necessary for school work.

• If the purpose of school is education let's consider the amount of time students spend on non-academic pursuits like athletics, journalism, band or choir, cheerleading and drill team, or theater. Of course there is value in each of these activities, but if the time students spend preparing for them were directed into academics, there would undoubtedly be improvement in academic results. Heresy? Perhaps, but this is where the community and society have to change. As long as Friday Night Lights or the high school musical have priority, not much will improve.

A demand for higher test scores, more stringent teacher evaluations, or more money – these are not the primary answers to the problems of education. The responsibility for education lies not just with the teacher, but with students who come to school prepared to learn, educational environments that are free from interruption and parents who work with the schools for the academic success of the students.

Without them, all other changes are cosmetic at best.

Sue Blanchette teaches U.S. history at Hillcrest High School in Dallas and is a Teacher Voices volunteer columnist. Her e-mail address is eagle91048@ ix.netcom.com.

AASA Supports NEA NCLB Lawsuit

The NEA announced today that six states (CT, DE, IL, ME, OK, WI, and DC), the governor of Pennsylvania, state and local officials in California, and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) filed a series of amicus briefs in support of the NEA’s appeal of the dismissal of their NCLB lawsuit, Pontiac v. Spellings.


Perhaps the most interesting development is AASA’s support for the lawsuit. It adds a management component to the labor plaintiff. If nothing else, NCLB has brought the superintendents and teacher’s union together on one issue.

Specifically, AASA takes exception to the Secretary’s interpretation of Section 9527, criticizes the costs involved in complying with NCLB, blasts Congress’ failure not to appropriate more money for Title I, and is dismayed at what it considers the dumbing down of state tests because of cost considerations.


Highlights of AASA’s amicus brief:


Amici agree with appellants that the Section imposes a broad prohibition against requiring states or school districts to spend their own funds for NCLB compliance, including compliance with requirements that are imposed by the NCLB itself. Amici do not write, however, to reiterate the basic principles of statutory interpretation that compel that conclusion. Rather Amici write to respond to an argument made by the defendant Secretary of Education (“Secretary”) in the district court (and noted with apparent approval in the decision of that court), and that Amici anticipate the Secretary may make in this Court as well…


the Secretary argued that Section 9527(a) could not possibly mean what appellants say it means, because if states and school districts were obligated to comply with the mandates of the NCLB only to the extent that they received sufficient federal funds to do so, this could prevent full implementation of the NCLB, and in turn could undermine the statutory purpose of “improving the academic achievement of all students . . ..” Amici disagree. As appellants explained in their complaint, in the NCLB Congress imposed extensive and costly new mandates on states and school districts in exchange for significant new federal funding to carry out those mandates….


Specifically, to provide states and school districts with the funds necessary to comply with Title I of the NCLB (which is the NCLB Title that imposes the most

significant mandates on states and school districts), Congress authorized the appropriation of $116.25 billion dollars over the course of the first six years of the

program, from fiscal year (“FY”) 2002 through FY 2007, with the authorized amounts steadily increasing from $13.5 billion in FY 2002 to $25 billion in FY

2007, to correspond to the increasing number and cost of the NCLB mandates during that period.


In the six years since the NCLB was enacted, however, Congress has appropriated (for FY 2002-2006) and the President has proposed (for FY 2007), an aggregate total of only $72.547 billion for those purposes, leaving states and school districts with a funding gap of at least $43.703 billion to fill. Moreover, the amount of the funding gap has steadily grown from fiscal year to fiscal year, as the NCLB mandates have become increasingly more extensive and expensive. Indeed, in the current school year, more than two-thirds of school districts in the country are receiving less in NCLB Title I funds than they previously did. Over the next few years, the situation is expected to deteriorate further: twenty-eight states and nearly two-thirds of school districts nationwide are receiving less Title I monies for FY 06 than they received during FY 05, and forty-one states are slated to receive less Title I monies under the President’s proposed budget for FY 07 than they did in prior years. This deterioration reflects the reality that instead of increasing appropriations for NCLB compliance each year as promised when the NCLB was enacted, Congress actually cut NCLB funding in FY 06 and is currently considering flatlining NCLB funding for FY 07 at the same level as FY 06….


Many states and school districts modified or abandoned their pre-existing testing regimes – which often were fuller and more comprehensive than the testing program mandated by the NCLB – because they lacked the resources necessary to maintain two separate testing regimes and/or could not sustain the pre-existing testing regimes on the scale mandated by the NCLB given the minimal federal funding provided….


Connecticut, for example, chose not to expand and strengthen its testing of students in grades 4, 6, 8 and 10 because of the need to devote its funds to developing and administering the standardized tests in grades 3, 5 and 7 that the NCLB mandates, but for which the federal government has not fully paid. Illinois reportedly abandoned plans to develop assessments for students on all of the Illinois learning standards, finding it necessary to proceed solely with the NCLB mandated tests rather than with the richer assessments in writing, social studies, arts, health and physical development that had been under consideration. And, Maryland stopped testing students in writing, science, and social studies, limiting its assessments solely to the reading and math tests currently required by the NCLB.


The cutbacks in testing subjects not covered by the NCLB inevitably have resulted in cutbacks in instruction in those subjects – illustrating the truth of the adage that what you get in education is what you assess. Throughout the country, elimination of tests in non-NCLB subjects has resulted in the elimination or reduction of classes in such subjects, including social studies, music, physical education, art and others. A recent nationwide survey of school districts found that to comply with the NCLB mandates, 71% of districts had reduced hours of instruction in elementary school on non-NCLB subjects, “systematically trimming courses like social studies, science and art” from the curriculum, and significant percentages of school districts reported similar reductions in their middle and high schools…


In sum, the Secretary’s insistence that states and school districts fully comply with the NCLB mandates no matter how far short federal funding falls from covering the costs of doing so, has forced states and school districts to divert funds away from other educational programs and priorities that, in their professional judgment, are essential to a sound educational system…


Congress has sought to fund the NCLB school improvement mandates by providing that states are to set aside for this purpose 4% of their Title I, Part A funds. However, the statute stipulates that the 4% set-aside must give way to the extent that it would result in a reduction of the total Title I, Part A funding that any school district receives as compared to the previous year. In reality, therefore, the 4% set-aside can only be applied to the portion of the state’s Title I, Part A funding that is allocated to school districts whose funding Is increasing. For most school districts, however, NCLB funding is declining, and many states therefore are not permitted to set aside 4% of their Title I, Part A funds. In the current school year, ten states were unable to set aside the full 4% – with two states (Oregon and New Mexico) unable to set aside more than .1% of those funds for school improvement activities. As a consequence, New Mexico now has only about $130,000 and Oregon has only about $169,000 to devote to the school improvement activities that must be undertaken in order to ensure that the schools in their states that have failed to make AYP for two years in a row make the necessary improvement in the future. Given that there are 95 such schools in New Mexico (leaving the state with just $1,368 per school for improvement activities) and 44 such schools in Oregon (leaving the state with just $3,834 per school for improvement activities), it could hardly be more apparent that the available federal funds do not even provide a foothold for beginning the type of comprehensive school reform strategies necessary to raise student test performance to the NCLB mandated levels…


The virtual absence of federal funding for NCLB-mandated school improvement activities is so severe that states and school districts cannot possibly be expected to come up with sufficient funds on their own to carry out those activities. Thus, at the existing levels of federal funding, the NCLB school improvement mandates and, with them, the NCLB as a whole, serve to undermine rather than improve the quality of public education…


there is growing evidence that the NCLB testing regime is unsound due to the inadequate funds the federal government has provided for the development and implementation of the required assessments – an inadequacy that again, is so pronounced that states and school districts cannot realistically be expected to fill the gap.28 According to one recent report, “lack of time, money, and skilled staff have led a substantial number of states to introduce tests that many testing experts say are not fully aligned with state standards – tests that don’t test what states expect their students to know.”...